As one of the internet's most controversial personalities, making outlandish claims and spreading conspiracy theories through his Infowars website and broadcast has made Jones a household name in political circles.

Initially, it was for his baseless accusation that 9/11 was an inside job. But in the past several years, he's claimed survivors of a mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school were "crisis actors." (False.) He's said the mass shooting of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary was a hoax. (False.) And he's accused Hillary Clinton of being involved in a child sex trafficking ring. (False.)

Critics have cried foul, saying Jones' particular brand of unproven accusations whip his fans into a frenzy, after which they harass, threaten and intimidate. In one extreme case, the parents of a Sandy Hook Elementary shooting victim told The New York Times they receive so many death threats and harassing messages they've had to relocate hundreds of miles from where their 6-year-old son is buried.

Jones' supporters say the moves are the latest example of tech companies silencing voices they don't agree with. His detractors say it was a long time coming.

Here's everything you need to know.

Who is Alex Jones and what is Infowars?

Jones is the Austin, Texas-based founder of Infowars, a website and media platform that bills itself as "the resistance" and uses the tagline: "There's a war for your mind!"

The company, founded in 1999, has attracted notable fans including Roger Stone, a Republican party strategist who's worked on various presidential campaigns, and President Donald Trump, who has praised Jones for his "amazing" reputation.

Now Playing:Watch this:
Why Alex Jones and Infowars were kicked off YouTube,...

2:41

Why does Jones matter to the tech industry?

In some ways, Jones represents the hairiest of issues tech companies face. Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube market themselves as bastions of free speech and a new way to communicate.

Their technology helped power the Arab Spring, as well as the #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo movements.

But it turns out that propagandists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists have also found that these sites can expand their influence and connect their fans. This leads us to Jones, whose Infowars has used YouTube, Twitter and Facebook in particular as services to dramatically expand his reach.

With people like Jones, there's even more of a dilemma. Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for example, has said he doesn't want to be an arbiter of truth and doesn't want to punish people for getting things "wrong." Twitter and YouTube, for their part, have largely chosen to keep their deliberations out of the public eye.

Isn't the tech industry violating the US Constitution's First Amendment free speech protections?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That first part means the government can't pass laws limiting your right to speak, but it doesn't say anything about companies or social networks.

But isn't it a slippery slope if we let tech companies start censoring people?

There are many people who appear to agree with this concern, particularly because tech companies haven't been fully transparent about how they make these decisions. Jason Kint, who runs Digital Content Next, a trade group for online news sites, said without a more transparent approach, the companies risk accusations of censorship.

"We still want them to be very cautious about anything that is close to censorship," Kint said. "Being crystal clear about their policies and how this is a violation of their policies would be helpful."

Isn't this all a ploy for tech companies to censor conservative voices?

So far, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and others have insisted they are not censoring conservative voices, but rather taking action against specific people and accounts that violate their anti-harassment and anti-terrorism policies.

That hasn't stopped conservative commentators from criticizing the tech industry over these concerns. Most recently, Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill took Facebook to task for seeming to censor a pro-Trump commentary page run by a pair known as Diamond and Silk. Facebook apologized and fixed the issue.

What specific thing did Infowars do this time?

The tech companies aren't citing specific examples.

Facebook said in its statement, for example, that it reviewed posts on various Infowars pages and chose to take them down "for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies."

Apple said it doesn't tolerate hate speech, "and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users." In a statement to BuzzFeed news, the company added "Podcasts that violate these guidelines are removed from our directory making them no longer searchable or available for download or streaming."

YouTube, meanwhile, said all users agree to comply with its terms of service and community guidelines when they sign up to use its service. "When users violate these policies repeatedly, like our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures, we terminate their accounts."

MailChimp said "a clear violation has taken place, and as stated in our Terms of Service, MailChimp has the sole authority to terminate this account." But it too didn't offer specifics.

So, Facebook, YouTube, Apple, LinkedIn, Spotify and Pinterest have all shut off Infowars. What about Twitter?

In its earlier days, Twitter said it considered itself "the free speech wing of the free speech party." As such, the company has historically been cautious about taking action against users on its service.

After other tech companies cut off access for Jones and Infowars, Twitter said on Monday it wasn't doing the same because Jones and Infowars aren't currently in violation of Twitter or its Periscope streaming service's rules.

"We know that's hard for many but the reason is simple: he hasn't violated our rules," Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted on Tuesday. "We'll enforce if he does."

Dorsey acknowledged that Twitter has historically has been "terrible" at explaining enforcement decisions in the past, but assured followers that Jones will be held to "the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories.

"If we succumb and simply react to outside pressure, rather than straightforward principles we enforce (and evolve) impartially regardless of political viewpoints, we become a service that's constructed by our personal views that can swing in any direction," Dorsey added. "That's not us."

What does Infowars say?

The company hasn't responded to requests for comment, but on a livestream Monday, Jones said the move was "cultural imperialism of the San Francisco tech elite."